studio_export_file

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses formats and scale multipliers but says nothing about whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the target directory must exist, permission requirements, or failure behavior for a tool that writes to disk.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and target, then the format and scaling options. Efficient with no filler, though it is slightly dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only behavioral source. It covers formats and scaling but omits the quality parameter's effect and, more importantly, what the tool returns (e.g. written path or status) and overwrite/error behavior for a disk-writing operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%, with scale and format self-documenting via enums and quality/outputPath documented inline. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the raw enum by labeling scale values (1x, 2x Retina, 3x Print 300DPI, 4x Ultra HD), clarifying the resolution intent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Exports the current graphic to a local image file on the host machine') and enumerates supported formats. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling project_export_download (local file vs download), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent is not told when to prefer studio_export_file over project_export_download or pdf_export_catalog, which are the obvious overlapping siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.